I think many of the comments in opposition to this are coming from people that do not have children. Many of those in support do. I speak as a parent of a child, and I think “parent brain” will affect your thoughts on this. Having said that, I grew up on dial up and very low tech HTML. Not social media which is an entirely different beast.
There is a book called The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness. NYU Prof. Jonathan Haidt argues that the rise of smartphones and overprotective parenting have led to a "rewiring" of childhood and a rise in mental illness. Suicides for both teenage girls and boys are up.
I’m choosing to send my kids to a school whose parents have also agreed to remove or drastically curb the use of social media. Not eliminate the creative sense of electronic tinkering.
I think it comes from the "I tinkered with tech as a kid!" mindset. It ignores the fact that smartphones are about as low-friction and consumption-centric as it gets when it comes to distracting material. If you want kids to learn about tech, then do it in a higher-friction deliberate context like a desktop computer.
Totally agree. I regularly hear that students should use tablets at school as it gets them used to technology they will use in the workplace. This is technology designed to be easy enough for an 80 year old to pick up and use, no training is required! Much better to be teaching them real work based activity & creative problem solving.
As a father of a 4 year old boy, I plan to remove smart phones and pads from my son for as long as possible. He can watch TV or play console/PC games but absolutely no mobile games for as long as I can. He will get a dumbphone maybe with a snake game when he grows up a bit.
In the mean time, I'll try to bring him to hiking, camping and other outdoor activities. If he is very into electronics then I'll introduce gaming and programming.
I'm also considering a no smartphone policy for myself. I cannot persuade my wife who is deep into scrolling hell already, sadly.
Haidt is a reactionary who makes grandiose conjectures about the Kids These Days with little real scientific evidence to back them up. He's the same guy who threw a fit over safe spaces in colleges and made them out to be a way bigger deal than the were/are.
At least you have a choice. Other parents have little choice but to send their kids to the same school as everyone else in the neighbourhood. London-based academies are not going to be as exclusive as independent (private) schools.
IMO the problem with that argument is similar to the problem with arguing stopping the kids from touching a whirling sawblade is overprotective - you can let them learn that way, but there is a nontrivial chance they will suffer extreme lasting harm before learning their mistake, so the calculus becomes avoiding the cases where the probability of irrevocable harm is significant.
I'm all in favor of letting kids make mistakes rather than trying to stop them from doing everything, and that past a certain point, your attempts to filter what they consume are doomed in most environments.
But to the best of my ability to judge, not exposing children to unfiltered 0-friction instant gratification for some number of years is going to be somewhat practically necessary to allow them to develop enough experience with longer-term reward seeking to make such decisions based on actual information about the rewards versus just picking the easy button every time.
Otherwise, we've all seen the portrayals for many centuries before cell phones of what happens when you have people who have never had to do long-term planning for significant rewards, and are bored of the lack of texture in just taking the easy hit every time. Cell phones have just commoditized failing the marshmellow experiment.
Everyone’s definition of overprotective parenting is different. But we do know the harms of smartphones. Many of us have decided to curb it as much as we can, just as we want to mitigate pre-adult drinking and marijuana consumption (or at least demonstrate an environment that produces the least harms).
For me I don’t mind her running around in a forest school or climbing on trees. Modern playgrounds are surprisingly sterile and overly safe.
100% agree. My daughter's school in Blackheath has special Faraday cage pouches for each student. Children deposit their phones in their pouches and upon crossing the school gate the pouches get magnetically sealed until the student leaves school for the day. Parents are loving it.
I believe it is Haidt himself who said bringing phones is analogous to a kid in the 90s bringing in a portable TV and putting on a show during class, and no one thinking that it is out of place. Of course it is! As a society we've made the determination that personal TVs and music players are unacceptable in the classroom, but phones, the single most addictive device ever made, is OK?!
My oldest is only 7 right now but I'm also seriously considering middle and high school options for him that severely restrict phone use. We play Minecraft on the weekends, he does MakeCode Arcade coding tutorials, and occasionally gets (heavily supervised) YouTube time. I don't think he's missing out on opportunities to become skilled with computers.
We have schools doing this in the Netherlands. Students actually report liking it because they are now more in real physical contact with their fellow students directly instead of immersed in their phone every chance they get.
I think that shows that indeed it should be a rule, voluntary will not work because of something akin to the network effect.
When we get interns at our company many of them, instead of communicating with us are in their phones during lunch and coffee breaks. It’s a disease, they don’t integrate, they don’t learn being social around collegeas. I don’t like most people of that generation and they never get to know me. Something has to change.
Yes. Kids are tuned in to the negative effect of phones/social media on themselves, don't want them, but feel they can't not have them because … everyone else is on them.
This is more about social media, but a research report [1] quoted by Jonathan Haidt in conversation with Tyler Cowen [2] expresses this:
"Users would need to BE PAID $59 to deactivate TikTok and $47 to deactivate Instagram if others in their network were to continue using their accounts."
BUT
"Users would be willing to PAY $28 and $10 to have others, including themselves, deactivate TikTok and Instagram, respectively."
> Students actually report liking it because they are now more in real physical contact with their fellow students directly instead of immersed in their phone every chance they get.
I wonder what a poll of those students would actually show
It will change the same way it changed for the generations before you. The old guard will retire and the young will become old. It's the circle of life.
My son (15 in London) has moved schools more than I'd like and they've all had smartphone policies that ranged from "must be in your bag", via "must be in your locker", to "must be left at home". None have allowed phones to be out during school hours, or on school grounds, other than in very limited circumstances, generally with prior permission, so I'm more surprised that so many schools, apparently all in Southwark, were this lenient to start with.
The one school my son went to that had a "must be left at home" policy, I think went slightly too far (many students there had a complex travel route, and parents wanted to be able to check in if e.g. they were running late), but at the other ones having them lock it in a locker or hand it in at the door didn't see to be an issue for either the students or parents, nor did many students seem to want to risk detention for taking their phone out of the bag without good reason at the school were that was policy.
> parents wanted to be able to check in if e.g. they were running late)
this one is just so funny to me. dumbphone argument aside, what do these parents think happened when they, themselves, were running late from school? somehow, their parents managed without a direct, 24/7 line.
I agree to an extent, and found it idiotic how strict they were about kids being accompanied to/from his primary school for that matter. But that secondary school was in an area where even I was skeptical about having him have no way of getting hold of us, not so much for safety, as because it'd take fairly little disruption for it to get complicated for him to make his way home in a reasonable time due to odd bus routes. And some kids have health issues - e.g. my son has struggled with various issues with his knees - where you don't want them facing a 1.5h-2h walk home if busses are messed up etc.
I suspect they first became mobile phone friendly. Dumbphones provided kids a way to communicate with parents and the worst distraction would be kids wanting to play snake and/or texting little messages to each other on their T9 keyboards.
But once smartphones came around they replaced those dumbphones and snuck in through the same policies, but in reality they're a completely different category from dumbphones.
Our society isn't equipped to handle new developments like this, and they "just happen" before anyone gives much thought to whether they will lead to bad outcomes down the road.
When an immigrant who was handcuffed and tazed subsequently died in Canada, the investigation started asking questions about the use of tazers. They wanted to see the testing and data that showed they were not lethal or long-term harmful for use on humans.
It turns out no such testing had ever been done. Companies just started making them, so Police forces started buying them and using them on people. To this day there is no data about the consequences of using them.
Same thing for smartphones in schools and a TON of other things in our world.
Getting caught using one (at least with stricter teachers) meant it was taken from you and you got it back at the end of class or even better, your parents picked it up from the principal. YMMV, but that's how it was in Poland in 2005.
> The schools have agreed that if any phone is used by a pupil during the school day, it will be confiscated.
In my experience as a parent, this is nothing new. Until last year one of my children went to a very large secondary school in the UK (not in London though). The above was the rule for all of the seven years they were at the school: if you kept your phone out of sight and set to dnd then you were ok, but if it was visible then it was confiscated. My impression as a parent is that it was reasonably well observed by students and enforced by staff.
Context: We have an election here in the UK in ~2 weeks and phones in schools have been a minor moral panic issue that some of the parties are trying to use to assert their education credentials. I'm not saying there is no problem with children and phones - I believe there is - but theres a reason its getting attention at the moment.
Yeah, same for me. I think my sons primary school had a policy of no phones, but they also had a (and this I find more ridiculous) policy of kids being dropped off or picked up, so there was no argument of them needing it to get in touch with their parents. He joined an early intake at a secondary and there they had to keep it out of sight. His subsequent schools have required them to be in lockers or out of sight on school grounds or not brought to school at all. He's been to more schools than I wish he'd needed to, and at 15 he's never been to a school (in London) where he was allowed to bring phones out other than with permission (e.g. asking a teacher for permission to call a parent, or if specific tasks were set - rarely - during lessons).
As I said in another comment, I'm more surprised Southwark had this many schools without restrictions, unless this has been exaggerated and many of them already had restrictions anyway and so no reason not to sign up to this...
I was curious about the legal grounds that schools have to confiscate student's phones for up to a week, and I found this document from the UK government:
- Page 19: Staff may examine any data or files on an electronic device they have confiscated as a result of a search, as defined in paragraph 57, if there is good reason to do so.
- Page 20: In determining whether there is a ‘good reason’ to examine the data or files, the member of staff should reasonably suspect that the data or file on the device has been, or could be used, to cause harm, undermine the safe environment of the school and
disrupt teaching, or be used to commit an offence.
It also doesn't seem to lay out a limit on the duration for which a device can be confiscated - which makes confiscation for a week look a bit like a grey area to me. Would love to hear from anyone with more experience on this area.
I've seen this before. To quote a barrister friend of mine, regardless of the law, it mostly depends on how big a stick the person having their device confiscated wields. The stick in this case is connections, parents etc. They rely purely on submission to enforce this policy. A simple "no" removes consent and their ability to do anything about it. If after that it is forced upon you, then things get "interesting" to quote him because it depends how they try and enforce it.
For example the barrister friend in question's daughter had her phone confiscated and it went missing in custody of the staff. The school disclaimed all responsibility but paid the moneyclaim out for a new phone quietly when the relevant stick was wielded and removed their policy of confiscation immediately as they worked out it was a liability. Turns out that while the law says they can do this, it doesn't mention anything about having no duty of care of other people's property at the same time...
During my school years, my teacher confiscated a deck of my trading cards and stored them in the classroom drawer.
You could probably see where this goes next - very quickly all my cards were stolen by my classmates, and I could do nothing while I saw my classmates play my own cards, as I had no proof they were mine.
That certainly taught me a lesson or two about human nature, at least at that time...
That an official government document explicitly mentioning that school staff is allowed to search a device without law enforcement (either being present, or authorized by warrant) is problematic in and of itself.
I am curious whether you are a UK citizen? In general, British law does not protect privacy, and is far less liberal (in the classical sense) than outsiders expect. The bits you cite seem fairly typical for UK expectations and rights.
As reported by my son who is in a 'phone free' high school here in the US, the policy is entirely useless. They make them put their phones in the 'phone hotel' at the beginning of the day, and they can retrieve them at the end. But many kids just put an old decoy phone in the hotel and keep their actual phone with them. Even if they don't do this, they're required to use laptops for class, and even with the school attempting to lock the laptops down, the kids all know how to get access to messaging, games, video, and social media on them. So they can do everything they would do with their phones anyway.
it sounds like because they have access to a school laptop, you're assuming the consequences of smartphone usage will still apply. what are the odds that the impact is actually identical? it's almost certainly not. and if i had to put money on it, i would say the impact is significantly reduced.
A century ago in the US, a lot of support for Prohibition came from the impact of liquor, yet Prohibition itself also banned beer.
I can very easily believe that the backlash against dark patterns, against deliberately addictive apps (games and social media), against advertising getting squeezed into what would otherwise be normal conversations, against the surveillance that currently manifests as GDPR cookie popups because almost everyone both corporate and government would rather annoy people than stop snooping, may well lead to a new Prohibition on all such things.
But will this new Prohibition throw out the baby with the bathwater? Smartphones do a lot of genuinely useful things.
Do you have kids? I have a 4-year old girl. And while parenting is so much harder without iPad and iPhone, my daughter is genuinely more interested in the world and imagination play than looking at screens. At age 2, was curious about the other kids with iPads, but now she shows no interest in screens. And we’re doing fine with static or minimally electronic toys. She has a whole adolescent/adult life ahead of her of screens.
This is about a developing child’s mind and the precautionary principle of knowing with the evidence we have now that social media is extremely harmful to mental health, especially to adolescent girls. This is not the same as outlawing alcohol to grown adults.
This doesn't sound particularly analogous to Prohibition. Mobile computers are being banned from schools, not from everywhere. As far as I'm aware, liquor and beer are also banned from schools and presumably always have been, before, during, and after Prohibition.
To me, the necessity to have a banning "law" is a sign of failure. We should teach children the why and how, incentive them to put, by themselves, their phone in a lockbox and eventually consider them as growing adult and not irresponsible childs.
You're assuming children (on average) have the same capacity to make reasoned decisions as adults so long as you just "teach" them.
There's a reason why we don't let 8-year-olds drive, and its not just that nobody bothered to take the time to teach them.
And no, no matter how many times I tell my three-year-old the stove is hot, I'm not going to put them in charge of cooking dinner on the stove. Instead, I'll ban them from using the stove outside of extremely supervised limited circumstances. I'm also not going to put them in charge of chopping things with sharp knives either. Instead I'll find other more age-appropriate ways for them to participate in making the meal.
Most adults wouldn't wear seatbelt nor would they respect the gazillions of traffic laws that make the road safer for the drivers and the pedestrian if it wasn't mandatory.
Same for fire hazard in buildings or strict hygiene rules in hospital to avoid infections.
And thousands of laws that make people behave in general. Like prohibiting murder.
"Here, kiddo. You're on your own, against the trillion dollar companies who employ entire teams of psychologists to identify and exploit addiction mechanisms."
Denver School(s) of Science and Technology (DSST) have been mobile free for a long time. The kids, I am told, love it. These are public schools. Confiscated phones are required to be picked up in person by the guardian. Something that can be quite the trek and traffic fight. I am told repeat offenses are not common.
Denver's public school system (DPS) is a bit unique, just FYI. All public schools are chartered, including the DSSTs. Meaning that all guardians are required to select the school that they want their kids to go to, there are no defaults. All kids get free bus passes on municipal transport. As is usual in Colorado public schooling, things get really law-y as the city and school district lines cross over county lines (cities are not entirely within counties in CO).
Readit News
There is a book called The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness. NYU Prof. Jonathan Haidt argues that the rise of smartphones and overprotective parenting have led to a "rewiring" of childhood and a rise in mental illness. Suicides for both teenage girls and boys are up.
I’m choosing to send my kids to a school whose parents have also agreed to remove or drastically curb the use of social media. Not eliminate the creative sense of electronic tinkering.
In the mean time, I'll try to bring him to hiking, camping and other outdoor activities. If he is very into electronics then I'll introduce gaming and programming.
I'm also considering a no smartphone policy for myself. I cannot persuade my wife who is deep into scrolling hell already, sadly.
It seems that once you send the kids to school, you no longer have full control over these things.
The friction is too big if you're the only parent with this policy. That's why "multiple schools join up" is a good thing.
Where they're at an age before knowing FPS, MMOs they will have tons of fun jumping up and collecting words.
Word Rescue, Maths Rescue the Fun School series all hold weight to name a few.
Just because the old don't have hyper-ai-raytracing graphics doesn't mean they're not playable for the younger generations.
He can be reactionary, and I don't agree with all of his views. But he is spot on about the negtive effect of smartphones and social media.
This what I explain to our kids and they understand it very well.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39987490
I'm all in favor of letting kids make mistakes rather than trying to stop them from doing everything, and that past a certain point, your attempts to filter what they consume are doomed in most environments.
But to the best of my ability to judge, not exposing children to unfiltered 0-friction instant gratification for some number of years is going to be somewhat practically necessary to allow them to develop enough experience with longer-term reward seeking to make such decisions based on actual information about the rewards versus just picking the easy button every time.
Otherwise, we've all seen the portrayals for many centuries before cell phones of what happens when you have people who have never had to do long-term planning for significant rewards, and are bored of the lack of texture in just taking the easy hit every time. Cell phones have just commoditized failing the marshmellow experiment.
For me I don’t mind her running around in a forest school or climbing on trees. Modern playgrounds are surprisingly sterile and overly safe.
My oldest is only 7 right now but I'm also seriously considering middle and high school options for him that severely restrict phone use. We play Minecraft on the weekends, he does MakeCode Arcade coding tutorials, and occasionally gets (heavily supervised) YouTube time. I don't think he's missing out on opportunities to become skilled with computers.
I think that shows that indeed it should be a rule, voluntary will not work because of something akin to the network effect.
When we get interns at our company many of them, instead of communicating with us are in their phones during lunch and coffee breaks. It’s a disease, they don’t integrate, they don’t learn being social around collegeas. I don’t like most people of that generation and they never get to know me. Something has to change.
Yes. Kids are tuned in to the negative effect of phones/social media on themselves, don't want them, but feel they can't not have them because … everyone else is on them.
This is more about social media, but a research report [1] quoted by Jonathan Haidt in conversation with Tyler Cowen [2] expresses this:
"Users would need to BE PAID $59 to deactivate TikTok and $47 to deactivate Instagram if others in their network were to continue using their accounts."
BUT
"Users would be willing to PAY $28 and $10 to have others, including themselves, deactivate TikTok and Instagram, respectively."
Emphasis mine on the above two quotes.
[1] https://bfi.uchicago.edu/insight/research-summary/when-produ... [2] https://conversationswithtyler.com/episodes/jonathan-haidt-a...
I wonder what a poll of those students would actually show
The one school my son went to that had a "must be left at home" policy, I think went slightly too far (many students there had a complex travel route, and parents wanted to be able to check in if e.g. they were running late), but at the other ones having them lock it in a locker or hand it in at the door didn't see to be an issue for either the students or parents, nor did many students seem to want to risk detention for taking their phone out of the bag without good reason at the school were that was policy.
this one is just so funny to me. dumbphone argument aside, what do these parents think happened when they, themselves, were running late from school? somehow, their parents managed without a direct, 24/7 line.
not so today in suburbia
But once smartphones came around they replaced those dumbphones and snuck in through the same policies, but in reality they're a completely different category from dumbphones.
When an immigrant who was handcuffed and tazed subsequently died in Canada, the investigation started asking questions about the use of tazers. They wanted to see the testing and data that showed they were not lethal or long-term harmful for use on humans.
It turns out no such testing had ever been done. Companies just started making them, so Police forces started buying them and using them on people. To this day there is no data about the consequences of using them.
Same thing for smartphones in schools and a TON of other things in our world.
None of those things were allowed out of your locker from the moment you got to school until you left.
Children having smartphones in class is a significant deviation from the norm.
> The schools have agreed that if any phone is used by a pupil during the school day, it will be confiscated.
In my experience as a parent, this is nothing new. Until last year one of my children went to a very large secondary school in the UK (not in London though). The above was the rule for all of the seven years they were at the school: if you kept your phone out of sight and set to dnd then you were ok, but if it was visible then it was confiscated. My impression as a parent is that it was reasonably well observed by students and enforced by staff.
Context: We have an election here in the UK in ~2 weeks and phones in schools have been a minor moral panic issue that some of the parties are trying to use to assert their education credentials. I'm not saying there is no problem with children and phones - I believe there is - but theres a reason its getting attention at the moment.
As I said in another comment, I'm more surprised Southwark had this many schools without restrictions, unless this has been exaggerated and many of them already had restrictions anyway and so no reason not to sign up to this...
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62d1643e8fa8f...
Some things that concern me:
- Page 19: Staff may examine any data or files on an electronic device they have confiscated as a result of a search, as defined in paragraph 57, if there is good reason to do so.
- Page 20: In determining whether there is a ‘good reason’ to examine the data or files, the member of staff should reasonably suspect that the data or file on the device has been, or could be used, to cause harm, undermine the safe environment of the school and disrupt teaching, or be used to commit an offence.
It also doesn't seem to lay out a limit on the duration for which a device can be confiscated - which makes confiscation for a week look a bit like a grey area to me. Would love to hear from anyone with more experience on this area.
For example the barrister friend in question's daughter had her phone confiscated and it went missing in custody of the staff. The school disclaimed all responsibility but paid the moneyclaim out for a new phone quietly when the relevant stick was wielded and removed their policy of confiscation immediately as they worked out it was a liability. Turns out that while the law says they can do this, it doesn't mention anything about having no duty of care of other people's property at the same time...
You could probably see where this goes next - very quickly all my cards were stolen by my classmates, and I could do nothing while I saw my classmates play my own cards, as I had no proof they were mine.
That certainly taught me a lesson or two about human nature, at least at that time...
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/40/part/7/chapter/...
Dead Comment
it sounds like because they have access to a school laptop, you're assuming the consequences of smartphone usage will still apply. what are the odds that the impact is actually identical? it's almost certainly not. and if i had to put money on it, i would say the impact is significantly reduced.
still there, sure, but this is a spectrum
A century ago in the US, a lot of support for Prohibition came from the impact of liquor, yet Prohibition itself also banned beer.
I can very easily believe that the backlash against dark patterns, against deliberately addictive apps (games and social media), against advertising getting squeezed into what would otherwise be normal conversations, against the surveillance that currently manifests as GDPR cookie popups because almost everyone both corporate and government would rather annoy people than stop snooping, may well lead to a new Prohibition on all such things.
But will this new Prohibition throw out the baby with the bathwater? Smartphones do a lot of genuinely useful things.
This is about a developing child’s mind and the precautionary principle of knowing with the evidence we have now that social media is extremely harmful to mental health, especially to adolescent girls. This is not the same as outlawing alcohol to grown adults.
There's a reason why we don't let 8-year-olds drive, and its not just that nobody bothered to take the time to teach them.
And no, no matter how many times I tell my three-year-old the stove is hot, I'm not going to put them in charge of cooking dinner on the stove. Instead, I'll ban them from using the stove outside of extremely supervised limited circumstances. I'm also not going to put them in charge of chopping things with sharp knives either. Instead I'll find other more age-appropriate ways for them to participate in making the meal.
Same for fire hazard in buildings or strict hygiene rules in hospital to avoid infections.
And thousands of laws that make people behave in general. Like prohibiting murder.
Deleted Comment
Denver's public school system (DPS) is a bit unique, just FYI. All public schools are chartered, including the DSSTs. Meaning that all guardians are required to select the school that they want their kids to go to, there are no defaults. All kids get free bus passes on municipal transport. As is usual in Colorado public schooling, things get really law-y as the city and school district lines cross over county lines (cities are not entirely within counties in CO).
https://www.dsstpublicschools.org/dsst-cgms-family-handbook